翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Ideogram
・ Ideogramme
・ Ideogrammic method
・ Ideograph (rhetoric)
・ Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block)
・ Ideographic Rapporteur Group
・ Ideography
・ Ideokinesis
・ Ideologi Sikap Otak
・ Ideologia
・ Ideologia (Cazuza album)
・ Ideological assumption
・ Ideological criticism
・ Ideological diversionism
・ Ideological exclusion
Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices
・ Ideological realism
・ Ideological repression
・ Ideological repression in the Soviet Union
・ Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law
・ Ideological Turing Test
・ Ideologies and Political Theory
・ Ideology
・ Ideology (album)
・ Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses
・ Ideology of Hezbollah
・ Ideology of Safavids
・ Ideology of the Communist Party of China
・ Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
・ Ideology of the Iranian Revolution


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices : ウィキペディア英語版
Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices
The U.S. Supreme Court is entrusted with resolving disputes about how the United States Constitution and other federal laws should be applied to cases that have been appealed from lower courts. The justices base their decisions on their interpretation of both legal doctrine and the precedential application of laws in the past. In a few cases, interpreting the law is relatively clear-cut and the justices decide unanimously without dissent. However, in more complicated or controversial cases, the Court is often divided.
It has long been commonly assumed that the votes of Supreme Court justices reflect their jurisprudential philosophies as well as their ideological leanings, personal attitudes, values, political philosophies, or policy preferences. A growing body of academic research has confirmed this understanding: scholars have found that the justices largely vote in consonance with their perceived values.〔
〕〔
〕 Analysts have used a variety of methods to deduce the specific perspective of each justice over time.
== Analysis ==
Researchers have carefully analyzed the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court – the votes and written opinions of the justices – as well as their upbringing, their political party affiliation, their speeches, editorials written about them at the time of their Senate confirmation, and the political climate in which they are appointed, confirmed, and work.〔Zorn and Caldeira provide a good overview of these methods and their limitations: 〕 From this data, scholars have inferred the ideological leanings of each justice and how the justices are likely to vote on upcoming cases.〔
For example:
* Segal and Cover found (p. 561) a strong correlation (0.80) between justices' perceived ideological perspectives on civil liberties and civil rights issues as attributed to them in elite newspaper editorials written just before their confirmation (their Segal–Cover score) and their later votes in the study period 1953–1988.
* Epstein, Walker, and Dixon found they could explain and predict rulings in criminal justice cases (in the study period 1946–1986) using a simple model with four inputs: the political party affiliation of the majority of justices, the political party affiliation of the current president (representing the current political climate), the Supreme Court rulings in criminal justice cases in the previous year, and the percent of criminal cases the Court decides to hear in the current year (how much interest they take in the issue). In this analysis, the political party affiliation of the majority of justices provided about one-fourth of the predictive power.
* Pinello conducted a meta-analysis of 84 studies of American courts covering 222,789 cases and found that political party affiliation was a dependable indicator of rulings: Democratic judges voted in favor of liberal solutions more often than Republican judges did, especially in federal courts (the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and U.S. District Courts).

Using statistical analysis of Supreme Court votes, scholars found that an inferred value representing a Justice's ideological preference on a simple conservative–liberal scale is sufficient to predict a large number of that justice's votes.〔
Some examples:
* Grofman and Brazill performed multidimensional scaling (MDS) using SYSTAT 5.0 of the entire range of cases considered by the Supreme Court, 1953–1991. Analyzing terms with an unchanging membership ("natural courts") and a complete bench of nine members (3,363 cases), they found that a one-dimensional scale provided a satisfactory explanation of votes and that the degree of unidimensionality generally rose over the years. “On average, over the 15 courts, the mean r2 values are 0.86 for a one dimensional metric MDS solution, and 0.97 for a two dimensional metric MDS solution.”
* Poole used various statistical measures to show that a unidimensional scale provides a good measure of the Rehnquist Court during the 8-year period 1995–2002.
〕 Subsequently, using increasingly sophisticated statistical analysis, researchers have found that the policy preferences of many justices shift over time.〔
〕〔name=Epstein2007>
〕〔name=Ruger2005>〕 The ideological leanings of justices (and the drift over time) can be seen clearly in the research results of two sets of scholars using somewhat different models:
Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn have employed Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to fit a Bayesian measurement model of ideal points (policy preferences on a one-dimensional scale) for all the justices based on the votes in every contested Supreme Court case since 1937.〔name=MartinQuinn2002>
〕〔
〕〔name=MartinEtAl2005>
〕〔name=Jackman2011>Jackman provides a simple description of this kind of statistical analysis:
〕 The graph below shows the results of their analysis: the ideological leaning of each justice from the term beginning in October 1937 to the term that began in October 2013.〔name=MartinQuinnDataset>
〕〔name=Silver2012>
In his FiveThirtyEight blog, Silver graphed the Martin-Quinn data to show the movement of the median, most conservative, and most liberal justices over time.〕 Note that the scale and zero point are arbitrary – only the relative distance of the lines is important. Each unique color represents a particular Supreme Court seat, which makes the transitions from retiring justices to newly appointed justices easier to follow. The black lines represent the leanings of the Chief Justices. The yellow line represents the estimated location of the median justice – who, as Duncan Black’s median voter theorem posits, is often the swing vote in closely divided decisions.〔name=Duncan1948>

Michael A. Bailey used a slightly different Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian method to determine ideological leanings and made significantly different scaling assumptions.〔name=Bailey2012>
〕〔name=BaileyMaltzman2011>〕〔name=Bailey2004>
〕 He analyzed cases by calendar year and supplemented the data regarding votes in each Court case with additional information from the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in which justices commented on previous cases, as well as with votes made by members of Congress on similar legislation, amicus filings by Solicitors General and members of Congress, and presidential and Congressional positions on Court cases. This additional information gave him a richer dataset and also enabled him to deduce preference values that are more consistent with the DW-Nominate Common Space scores used to evaluate the ideological leanings of members of Congress and Presidents.〔name="EpsteinMartinSegalWesterland2007">
〕 However, he only used votes and cases related to the major topics addressed by the courts in the postwar area: crime, civil rights, free speech, religion, abortion, and privacy. He did not include federalism or economic issues.〔name=Bailey2012 />〔name=Bailey2007>

The graph below shows the ideological leaning of each justice by calendar year from 1950 to 2011.〔name=BaileyDataset>
(【引用サイトリンク】 url=http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/Data/Data_Measuring1950to2011_June2012.htm )〕 The scale and zero point roughly correspond to DW-Nominate Common Space scores, but otherwise are arbitrary. As in the graph above, each unique color represents a particular Supreme Court seat. The black lines represent the leanings of the Chief Justices. The yellow line represents the median justice.
These two graphs differ because of the choices of data sources, data coverage, coding of complicated cases, smoothing parameters, and statistical methods. Each of the lines in these graphs also has a wide band of uncertainty. Because these analyses are based on statistics and probability, it is important not to over-interpret the results.〔
〕〔name=NOMINATE-IDEAL2009>
〕 Also, the nature of the cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear may lead the justices to appear more liberal or conservative than they would if they were hearing a different set of cases. And all cases are valued equally even though, clearly, some cases are much more important than others.〔
〕〔
〕 Still, they offer an indication of the overall ideological orientation of the justices and provide a visualization of changes in the Court's orientation over time.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.